Apple

Dec. 28, 2017: This year saw a new level of insecurity for many reporters operating around the world. Two members of the media look back at journalism in 2017. Plus, why two Reuters journalists are being detained in Myanmar; Roy Moore tries to stave off his election defeat; how one New York school is preparing its students to enter the workforce; and why private pensions are becoming a thing of the past. 

Click on the audio player above to hear this interview.

A California judge has ordered Apple to unlock an iPhone used by one of the San Bernardino shooters, Syed Rizwan Farook, but Apple is opposing the FBI request and the court order.

The federal order, issued by Magistrate Judge Sheri Pym  on Wendesday, directs Apple to “build special software that would essentially act as a skeleton key capable of unlocking the phone,” our partner The New York Times reports.

Though the company has helped the FBI before, CEO Tim Cook issued a lengthy statement explaining why Apple is digging in its heels. It reads in part: 

“We have great respect for the professionals at the FBI, and we believe their intentions are good. Up to this point, we have done everything that is both within our power and within the law to help them. But now the U.S. government has asked us for something we simply do not have, and something we consider too dangerous to create. They have asked us to build a backdoor to the iPhone.

“Specifically, the FBI wants us to make a new version of the iPhone operating system, circumventing several important security features, and install it on an iPhone recovered during the investigation. In the wrong hands, this software — which does not exist today — would have the potential to unlock any iPhone in someone’s physical possession.”

Cook later added:

“The implications of the government’s demands are chilling. If the government can use the [1789] All Writs Act to make it easier to unlock your iPhone, it would have the power to reach into anyone’s device to capture their data. The government could extend this breach of privacy and demand that Apple build surveillance software to intercept your messages, access your health records or financial data, track your location, or even access your phone’s microphone or camera without your knowledge.”

According to Katie Brenner, a technology reporter for our partner The New York Times, this fight may become the signature case on privacy and security in the age of encryption.

Click on the audio player above to hear this interview.

Apple CEO Tim Cook issued a strongly worded letter this week explaining why he is appealing a court order to unlock and access data from an iPhone that belonged to Syed Farook who, along with his wife, killed 14 people and injured nearly two dozen at a social service agency in San Bernardino, California last year. 

Apple was issued an order by a California magistrate judge to help FBI investigators unlock the iPhone, which would mean Apple would have to create a new software tool to override specific security protections built to protect customer data; essentially creating a backdoor to obtain the information.  It’s the latest chapter in a long battle between the Justice Department and Silicon Valley.

Here to weigh in on Apple’s privacy dilemma is Susan Hennessey, a former attorney for the National Security Agency and a fellow at the Brookings Institution.

Click on the audio player above to hear this interview.

Today is the deadline for Apple to respond to a judicial order to unlock the iPhone that belonged to San Bernardino shooter Syed Rizwan Farook. The federal government has also asked for the company’s help in unlocking nine additional phones.

But Apple has refused to comply—on Thursday, it filed a formal opposition to the federal court order. As the standoff between the tech giant and the FBI continues, and the presidential candidates are weighing in.

“Apple should be forced to comply with this court order Why? Because of the Fourth Amendment,” Texas Senator Ted Cruz said at Thursday’s GOP debate. “A search and seizure is reasonable if it has judicial authorization and probable cause. In this instance, the order is not ‘put a back door in everyone’s cell phone.’ If that was the order, that order would be problematic because it would compromise security and safety for everyone.”

When it comes to unlocking Farook’s phone, Apple’s cooperation is essential, FBI Director James Comey told the House of Representatives yesterday.

“Law enforcement, which I’m part of, really does save people’s lives—rescue kids, rescue neighborhoods from terrorists—and we do that a whole lot through court orders that are search warrants, and we do that a whole lot through search warrants of mobile devices,” Comey testified.

Apple is now said to be working on a new software to ensure the security of their phones.

“This case is not about one phone,” Apple CEO Tim Cook said Wednesday. “This case is about the future. What is at stake here is can the government compel Apple to write software that we believe would make millions of customers vulnerable around the world, including the U.S.?”

From 2003 to 2005, Nuala O’Connor was the chief privacy officer for the Department of Homeland of Security. She’s currently the president and CEO of the Office of the Center for Democracy and Technology, a nonprofit focused on advancing a free and open internet.

O’Connor tells The Takeaway where the Apple-FBI fight goes from here, and discusses the broader issues of privacy and security in the United States. 

February 19, 2016: 1. Author Harper Lee Dead at 89 | 2. Apple’s Privacy Dilemma: Inside The Battle Between the DOJ and Silicon Valley | 3. Legal Experts Remember Scalia’s Best and Worst Opinions | 4. Movie Review: ‘The Witch’ | 5. Actor Edward Gero on Portraying Justice Antonin Scalia

February 02, 2016: 1. They Came, They Saw, They Caucused in Iowa | 2. Road Warriors: Life on the Campaign Trail | 3. Will America Betray the Kurds Again? | 4. Don’t Freak Out, Yet: Apple May Replace the Headphone Mini Jack